About a quarter of Japan's space engineers—those who have had the most experience developing the H-II series and its predecessors—will retire by 2020, Asada said at the Japan International Aerospace Exhibition here last week. By 2020, an engineer who was 25 in the mid-1980s, during early work on the original H-II rocket, will be around 60.

A high-level Japanese government panel has tentatively recommended proceeding with development of a lower-cost, commercially viable successor to the nation’s workhorse H-2A rocket.

The recommendation to develop the so-called H-3 rocket was handed down May 17 in a draft midterm report by the Space Transportation Systems Subcommittee of Japan’s Cabinet-level Office of National Space Policy (ONSP).

H-2A prime contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) of Tokyo proposed a two-stage “New Concept Rocket” with a liquid-fueled core stage and solid-rocket strap-on motors that would be available commercially by 2020 at half the price of an H-2A

Note: the H-X thread and the H-3 development thread were merged into one as both handle the same subject: the proposed H-IIA successor.

A high-level Japanese government panel has tentatively recommended proceeding with development of a lower-cost, commercially viable successor to the nation’s workhorse H-2A rocket.

The recommendation to develop the so-called H-3 rocket was handed down May 17 in a draft midterm report by the Space Transportation Systems Subcommittee of Japan’s Cabinet-level Office of National Space Policy (ONSP).

H-2A prime contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) of Tokyo proposed a two-stage “New Concept Rocket” with a liquid-fueled core stage and solid-rocket strap-on motors that would be available commercially by 2020 at half the price of an H-2A

Note: the H-X thread and the H-3 development thread were merged into one as both handle the same subject: the proposed H-IIA successor.

"at half the price of an H-2A" this is an impressive goal. Can't wait to see how this is done.

Logged

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

A high-level Japanese government panel has tentatively recommended proceeding with development of a lower-cost, commercially viable successor to the nation’s workhorse H-2A rocket.

The recommendation to develop the so-called H-3 rocket was handed down May 17 in a draft midterm report by the Space Transportation Systems Subcommittee of Japan’s Cabinet-level Office of National Space Policy (ONSP).

H-2A prime contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) of Tokyo proposed a two-stage “New Concept Rocket” with a liquid-fueled core stage and solid-rocket strap-on motors that would be available commercially by 2020 at half the price of an H-2A

Note: the H-X thread and the H-3 development thread were merged into one as both handle the same subject: the proposed H-IIA successor.

"at half the price of an H-2A" this is an impressive goal. Can't wait to see how this is done.

Won't become a reality. CNES recently said something very similar about Ariane 6. Won't happen either. (the "half the price" bit I mean)

A high-level Japanese government panel has tentatively recommended proceeding with development of a lower-cost, commercially viable successor to the nation’s workhorse H-2A rocket.

The recommendation to develop the so-called H-3 rocket was handed down May 17 in a draft midterm report by the Space Transportation Systems Subcommittee of Japan’s Cabinet-level Office of National Space Policy (ONSP).

H-2A prime contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) of Tokyo proposed a two-stage “New Concept Rocket” with a liquid-fueled core stage and solid-rocket strap-on motors that would be available commercially by 2020 at half the price of an H-2A

Note: the H-X thread and the H-3 development thread were merged into one as both handle the same subject: the proposed H-IIA successor.

"at half the price of an H-2A" this is an impressive goal. Can't wait to see how this is done.

Won't become a reality. CNES recently said something very similar about Ariane 6. Won't happen either. (the "half the price" bit I mean)

Any cost savings at this time are like a must, so I wish them well in the project. Also hope the USA still has some ties to JAXA and can get these cost savings ideas/designs transferred to Delta.

You missed something I hope wasn't a translation issue. It said "commercial" in that statement. As you know most of the current launches are for JAXA.

Logged

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

A high-level Japanese government panel has tentatively recommended proceeding with development of a lower-cost, commercially viable successor to the nation’s workhorse H-2A rocket.

The recommendation to develop the so-called H-3 rocket was handed down May 17 in a draft midterm report by the Space Transportation Systems Subcommittee of Japan’s Cabinet-level Office of National Space Policy (ONSP).

H-2A prime contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) of Tokyo proposed a two-stage “New Concept Rocket” with a liquid-fueled core stage and solid-rocket strap-on motors that would be available commercially by 2020 at half the price of an H-2A

Note: the H-X thread and the H-3 development thread were merged into one as both handle the same subject: the proposed H-IIA successor.

"at half the price of an H-2A" this is an impressive goal. Can't wait to see how this is done.

Won't become a reality. CNES recently said something very similar about Ariane 6. Won't happen either. (the "half the price" bit I mean)

Any cost savings at this time are like a must, so I wish them well in the project. Also hope the USA still has some ties to JAXA and can get these cost savings ideas/designs transferred to Delta.

You missed something I hope wasn't a translation issue. It said "commercial" in that statement. As you know most of the current launches are for JAXA.

No, I didn't miss that. Like ESA, the Japanese launchers are developed under auspices of the space agency. In this case JAXA. It then will be put to work as a commercial launcher. This is not Mitsubishi saying: "Hey, we're gonna develop H-3 on our own and market it commercially". This is Mitsubishi saying: "Hey JAXA, we have a proposal for an HII-A replacement and guess what... it has a chance of being fielded commercially. Would you kindly supply us with the funds needed to develop this thing?". With the latter they 'sold' a government advice council on the viability of their proposal and now that government council is giving the advice to actually fund and develop H-3. With Japanese taxpayers money naturally.

It uses a new open exander cycle engine, LE-X, with a thrust of 1448kN (vac) and an ISP of 432.

The core stage has two LE-X. Then there is a second stage AND a small third stage for GTO launches (curious). Apparently the version without boosters can put 4t to GTO. For 6t to GTO the launcher requires 4 additional boosters.

TOKYO -- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. is also eyeing commercialization of low-cost rocket launches in line with the nation's official strategy.

It took a giant leap in its bid to become a profitable space company on Aug. 4 when it launched one of its H-IIB rockets for the first time after it took over full control of launch services from Japan's space agency, at the Tanegashima Space Center in Kagoshima Prefecture.

The No. 4 H-IIB rocket carried into space the Konotori cargo transporter, which brought food and supplies to the International Space Station.

Ceding authority

For the launch of the first three H-IIB rockets, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) gave the final go-ahead after analyzing weather and other conditions. This was the first launch in which JAXA handed over all decision-making authority to Mitsubishi Heavy.

The company had previously been given the reins to launch the less powerful H-IIA rocket, and the Aug. 4 H-IIB launch marked another step in the privatization of Japan's space program.

The H-IIA and H-IIB are capable of putting satellites weighing up to 6 and 8 metric tons, respectively, into geostationary orbit.

With JAXA ceding its authority to Mitsubishi Heavy, the leading Japanese heavy machinery maker will be able to seek orders for launching domestic and foreign-made satellites of various sizes.

"We hope to market our services in Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere," said Yoichi Kujirai, executive vice president and head of aerospace systems at Mitsubishi Heavy.

The depreciation of the yen, coupled with JAXA's decision, has created "business opportunities for us at last," a Mitsubishi Heavy marketing official said.

Uncompetitive

The H-IIA and H-IIB face tough competition from overseas. The U.S. and Russia have launched more than 300 rockets between them; Japan has launched just over 20.

Mitsubishi does not disclose earnings from its rocket launch business, only that it is "not in the red," according to an official, suggesting that the business is not highly profitable for the company.

"Business is tough, but we hope to accumulate successful results," Executive Vice President Tatsuhiko Nojima said.

The rocket is "overlooked on the commercial market because of its high launch cost," said a JAXA official.

The H-IIA has secured only one launch order from abroad. The cost of each launch is estimated at nearly 10 billion yen ($100 million) for the H-IIA and 15 billion yen for the H-IIB, much higher than the global average of around 7 billion yen. Although the two rockets have high success rates, they do not compete with rivals on price.

According to Mitsubishi Heavy, it needs to carry out four launches a year to support its H-II rocket production technology. But only three launches are planned for this business year.

The government recently decided to begin a project in fiscal 2014 to develop an internationally competitive rocket, tentatively called the H-III. The successor to the H-IIA is expected to cost less while continuing to be as reliable. The project will involve JAXA, Mitsubishi Heavy, IHI Corp. and others.

Going private, cheaper

The high cost of the H-IIA program is the result of a government policy that regarded space as a testing ground for advanced technologies. The H-III project will seek to halve the cost of launches to encourage more commercial endeavors.

In past projects, the government decided on basic designs and then farmed out the development of rockets to private companies. The H-III program will take into account opinions and input from Mitsubishi Heavy and other companies from its initial stage.

The H-III project, with its slogan of "a rocket incorporating private-sector power," will consider the capabilities of solid-fueled rockets, and study new approaches to fuel efficiency and other cost-saving techniques. Foreign companies may also be asked to participate in the development of the engines and some other core components.

------

Image Captions:

Image 1Mitsubishi Heavy on Aug. 4 launches an H-IIB rocket after taking full control from JAXA at the Tanegashima Space Center in Kagoshima Prefecture. (Kyodo)

Image 2Yoichi Kujirai, executive vice president and head of aerospace systems at Mitsubishi Heavy, speaks to the press after the successful launch of an H-IIB rocket on Aug. 4.

Image 3An H-III rocket rests on a launch pad in this conceptual image provided by JAXA.

The claim that H-III will be cheaper and therefore competitive is identical to the claims made for H-IIA and even H-II. The truth seems to be that JAXA is planning for a bigger rocket with more lifting capability that is in many ways a growth variant of H-IIA/H-IIB. The big difference is a core that can lift itself for smaller payload missions, and a single core that can handle both H-IIA and H-IIB class missions, plus a bit more, by varying the number of solid boosters. I suppose that maintaining production of only one core instead of two should save a bit of money, but I still don't see the commercial competitiveness.

It seems to be a rocket optimized for institutional missions. I don't know why JAXA should get into the comsat business, IMO the market cannot support that many players. It probably barely pays off for ESA with 50%+ market share.

It seems to be a rocket optimized for institutional missions. I don't know why JAXA should get into the comsat business, IMO the market cannot support that many players. It probably barely pays off for ESA with 50%+ market share.

And they launch from 30deg. So they have to spend more energy than even the Americans. With Japanese labor I don't see them being very competitive. But they engine should be a lot cheaper. The LE-7 is an RS-25 class engine, and probably cost wise very similar, with an annual production around of 4. The new core would use two of the cheaper LE-X (8?9?).But cost is not only on the core, but on the ops. If they redesign the ground ops, have a true single core, simplified fairing offerings, and apply some of the low cost approach on avionics and GSE of the Epsilon, then they might lower costs.The only issue is that by going the strap-a-solid for payload flexibility, they are sticking to vertical assembly. Will they do like Atlas V, and use an MLP, or should they do like Delta IV should have done and have checkout and integration done in an HIF time on the pad just for strap-on and payload integration.

[ Special features ]- The main liquid-engine core rockets will be the same specifications for all launch vehicles in the new series so that manufacturing and operation can be more efficiently performed.- Up to six solid rocket boosters (depending on the needs) can be attached for a Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) mission to be able to flexibly cope with diversified needs.

[ Development schedule ]The development will begin in early Japan Fiscal Year 2014 targeting a maiden launch in JFY 2020.

I hope they take a hard look at all the Delta IV lessons because it was supposed to be the dirty cheap launcher and ended up as a black sheep that only survived because of very questionable tactics of its parent company. I hope they are successful.

In my opinion, that "reduction by half" claim is based on the fact that both H-2A and H-2B will be replaced by this new vehicle. Two production lines reduced to one. That doesn't make it a cheap rocket.

In my opinion, that "reduction by half" claim is based on the fact that both H-2A and H-2B will be replaced by this new vehicle. Two production lines reduced to one. That doesn't make it a cheap rocket.

- Ed Kyle

You might be right Ed.....However I get the impression Mitsubishi wishes to be a serious player in the launch business. Noticed this last launcher (GPM) was cheaper to make. The program now in place seems designed to be a continuous cost reduction, could add up real fast.

« Last Edit: 03/26/2014 06:51 PM by Prober »

Logged

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

In my opinion, that "reduction by half" claim is based on the fact that both H-2A and H-2B will be replaced by this new vehicle. Two production lines reduced to one. That doesn't make it a cheap rocket.

- Ed Kyle

Since the H-3 is not developing new engines or new tooling. The development cost should be minimal.

Of course the cost estimate and the actual cost might be quite different.

In my opinion, that "reduction by half" claim is based on the fact that both H-2A and H-2B will be replaced by this new vehicle. Two production lines reduced to one. That doesn't make it a cheap rocket.

- Ed Kyle

Since the H-3 is not developing new engines or new tooling. The development cost should be minimal.

Of course the cost estimate and the actual cost might be quite different.

In many ways, H3 and A6 seem to tread the same path now, yet in very different countries / cultures.

Its a very difficult challenge to address a low cost LV involving solids/hydrolox. Delta IV went from the potential of cheap to the reality of extreme expense. Commonality to reduce cost fights optimality to achieve vehicle performance. Presumption of high launch frequency - a common political over reach, predestines failure to reach cost targets before vehicle obsolescence.

And then the cycle starts anew, as the components of the launch system including vehicle either are shared/not evolved enough and the past cost/performance/scale burdens are inherited from the past, or too much is novel for not enough gain in this cycle of development.

Atlas was a excellent study in caution from a technical/operations perspective. Incremental refinement that invested but did not over invest in the future. But perhaps this caution indirectly and unavoidably caused a vulnerability in the form of dependancy - if say one could have determined the future, would Atlas V with an American kerolox engine (perhaps from TRW?) from the Atlas II days ... been as much of a success? Or was the dependency/outsourcing also much of the success of Atlas V?

Likewise, Musk added significant risk in F9.1.1/F9R. Have though about kevinrf's "every LV over reaches market demand" while watching the roll out of it.

As well as the potentially successful overreach of ATK's Advanced Boosters for SLS as follow on post EM 1/2 flights, against the backdrop of an OrbATK merger and unclear follow-on for SLS given potential global economic instabilities being signalled.

The nature of industry integration (Japan/Europe) or of CONOPs operation (Musk's reusability) or of forcing strategic funding (ATK/Russia/others) as competing means to address the future launch services, the ways forward don't seem clear.

"What you can do" vs. "what you should do" is clouded by industrial biases/practices/social/culture issues.

Clearly the only way forward is to reuse/leverage/scale/volume the past propulsion w/o additional costs or unneeded new development. In this case, common solids with Epsilon (is this possible?), a common engine for US/1 stages (works against optimal stage design), low cost common stage/tank construction. None of this was possible for A5/DIV. And it goes against both European and Japanese practice/culture. Its even worse if one talks about pad flows/GSE/"issues".

Also clear is that should Musk get practical reusable launch services, he'll own them globally for 5-10 years just with what is already developed and launching at the moment. Meaning many countries LV's might likely never see much launch frequency, making follow-on development of future LV's much more uncertain/uneconomic.

Pride/reliance could become very costly. How do very smart people facing this choose how to play out the near future?

If they use an expander open cycle for the upper stage engine, they could probably do a niner like the F9, just with H2. So at least in that sense the Japanese don't appear to be doing any sort of dead end development.

Interesting, to use an expander (bleed) on a first stage. This has been proposed before but has been left unexplored for some reason.

As I understand it, it's tough to get high pressure with an expander cycle, and that's an issue for an engine that must operate at sea level. But if it's an open expander cycle (has that ever been used before?), then that eases the problem a bit.

The LE-X engine is an open expander-bleed cycle; dumping the hydrogen used in the expander wastes the chemical energy content (though it may be manifolded into the exhaust nozzle downstream of the throat), but generates more turbopump power since the expander sees more of a vacuum rather than trying to stuff mass into the high pressure combustion chamber in a fully closed cycle as the RL10 and Vinci engines do. It's really more of a greatly scaled-up LE-5A/B, as used on the second stage.

This article shows a CGI image by JAXA of the H-III being raised from a horizontal position on a strongback.

-Are the solid rocket boosters small and light enough for this to work, or does it have to be all-liquid?-Will the VAB be dismantled and replaced with a horizontal integration facility, or will the rocket still be assembled vertically, then lowered to a horizontal position for transport to the launch pad?

This article shows a CGI image by JAXA of the H-III being raised from a horizontal position on a strongback.

-Are the solid rocket boosters small and light enough for this to work, or does it have to be all-liquid?-Will the VAB be dismantled and replaced with a horizontal integration facility, or will the rocket still be assembled vertically, then lowered to a horizontal position for transport to the launch pad?

appears to use the H-II family pads. Other info shows that H-III will be made launch site flexible like Epsilon so there may be additional pads elsewhereAlso the TEL design in some previous graphic show it is only employed on the core alone version but that was 2013.

Latest report on the H-III - it has passed the mission definition and system readiness review phase.

Looks like the team is still looking at the core stages with the number of engines on both stages still undecided (2-3 for the 1st stage and 1-2 for the 2nd), and they seems to have went back to vertical integration.

Hmm....while I still hold on to some expectations, I'm sure that some fans of a certain SoCal aerospace company will say that this one will also be "obsolete by next Monday".

Latest report on the H-III - it has passed the mission definition and system readiness review phase.

Looks like the team is still looking at the core stages with the number of engines on both stages still undecided (2-3 for the 1st stage and 1-2 for the 2nd), and they seems to have went back to vertical integration.

SDR is finished and agreed transition to the preliminary design phase.

The team is decided 1st stage engines number are selectable 2 or 3.2nd stage number of engines (1 or 2) are not defined yet.Modified SRBs are selectable 0 or 2 or 4.Launch pad ML2 is upgraded for this rocket.

This next generation rocket's name is not defined yet. H-III is not official name.

It seems that Japanese media is reporting a target cost of 50 billion yen (~$41M US) for the baseline version - if so that's a little bit higher than what I think for the (similar performance) basic F9R....but not by much. If they really can hit that target the Japanese might actually have some chance of getting a foothold in the market for the very first time.

Announcement of the Official Naming of the Next Generation Launch Vehicle

The National Research and Development Agency, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is proud to announce the official naming of the Next Generation Launch Vehicle currently under development as follows. The name was decided in coordination with the prime contractor (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.) We will continue to develop the Next Generation Launch Vehicle in order to achieve flexible and diversified demands.

Name: H3 Launch Vehicle (Abbreviation: H3)The major reasons for the selection is as follows:

Announcement of the Official Naming of the Next Generation Launch Vehicle

The National Research and Development Agency, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is proud to announce the official naming of the Next Generation Launch Vehicle currently under development as follows. The name was decided in coordination with the prime contractor (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.) We will continue to develop the Next Generation Launch Vehicle in order to achieve flexible and diversified demands.

Name: H3 Launch Vehicle (Abbreviation: H3)The major reasons for the selection is as follows:

In other news, it looks like they have settled on 1 140 kN thrust engine on the upper stage - which according to Japanese reports would be an upgrade of the existing LE-5B rather than a new engine.

The first stage will have either 2 or 3 new 1.5 MN class engines (LE-9) - I guess it will be 2 on the GTO bound versions with SRBs and 3 on the baseline SSO version? The SRBs will have an average thrust of 2.2 MN.

It seems that Japanese media is reporting a target cost of 50 billion yen (~$41M US) for the baseline version - if so that's a little bit higher than what I think for the (similar performance) basic F9R....but not by much. If they really can hit that target the Japanese might actually have some chance of getting a foothold in the market for the very first time.

OK it's 5B yen not 50, but the target cost is holding. It won't be a game changer, but $40M US for a 4+t SSO launcher might be able to sink the Ariane 62, Vega-E and Antares 200.....

Announcement of the Official Naming of the Next Generation Launch Vehicle

The National Research and Development Agency, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is proud to announce the official naming of the Next Generation Launch Vehicle currently under development as follows. The name was decided in coordination with the prime contractor (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.) We will continue to develop the Next Generation Launch Vehicle in order to achieve flexible and diversified demands.

Name: H3 Launch Vehicle (Abbreviation: H3)The major reasons for the selection is as follows:

In other news, it looks like they have settled on 1 140 kN thrust engine on the upper stage - which according to Japanese reports would be an upgrade of the existing LE-5B rather than a new engine.

The first stage will have either 2 or 3 new 1.5 MN class engines (LE-9) - I guess it will be 2 on the GTO bound versions with SRBs and 3 on the baseline SSO version? The SRBs will have an average thrust of 2.2 MN.

It seems that Japanese media is reporting a target cost of 50 billion yen (~$41M US) for the baseline version - if so that's a little bit higher than what I think for the (similar performance) basic F9R....but not by much. If they really can hit that target the Japanese might actually have some chance of getting a foothold in the market for the very first time.

OK it's 5B yen not 50, but the target cost is holding. It won't be a game changer, but $40M US for a 4+t SSO launcher might be able to sink the Ariane 62, Vega-E and Antares 200.....

Yes, it is an upgraded LE-5B, which has potential to get new designation LE-5C upon project completion because of enhancements and next gen design for additive manufacturing. The upgraded engine will be replaced with a new engine as part of a future upgrade package, which may become H-IIIA. This replacement is not planned till a minimum of a decade from now.

That was good press conference.LE-9 thrust is more than 10 times bigger than LE-5B, how develop the such large scale leap ? (LE-9 thrust is 150 metric tons, LE-5B 14 tons)The point is ｌonger thrust chamber that collect more heat from chamber wall (LE-5B, LE-9 are Expander breed cycle engine).

SRB-A is almost newly developed. Visual appearance is same, but another one.

Impressive looking hardware and concepts! I wish I could read Japanese. Anyone catch the performance to Low Earth Orbit for the 4x SRB version - both 28.5 degree or other low-inclinations and 50+plus degree orbits?

Logged

"Those who can't, Blog". 'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!!(crickets chirping)

The LE-9 would be by far the highest thrust expander cycle engine ever developed, using a "bleed" or open cycle rather than a closed cycle turbopump system. Getting that much thrust out of an expander cycle turbopump is a challenge: the specific impulse is lower as a result of the open cycle, but it's still pretty good. I wonder what the T/W ratio is?

They want to have a common motor for SRB-3 and Epsilon first stage. Only difference would be the nosecap and the H3 solids would not use TVC (but will try to use as many common parts of the nozzle as possible).

PDR early 2016, CDR late 2017, first launch 2020. They should be starting to build the engine test stand about now.

This article shows a CGI image by JAXA of the H-III being raised from a horizontal position on a strongback.

-Are the solid rocket boosters small and light enough for this to work, or does it have to be all-liquid?-Will the VAB be dismantled and replaced with a horizontal integration facility, or will the rocket still be assembled vertically, then lowered to a horizontal position for transport to the launch pad?

I know this doesn't matter anymore in regards to the current plan, but it turns out that there would have been enough room for a horizontal vehicle assembly building between the current VAB and the block house (I came across the image here)

yes and if launch rate ever becomes high enough all three can be upgraded to H-3 configurationML-2 is the only one still moved on rails and ML3 is the one that also hosts H-IIB (It basically lives in that configuration currently).

Ko Ogasawara, MHI’s vice president and general manager for launch, told SpaceNews the critical design review, or CDR, for the H3 is scheduled for this autumn and will give an indication of how effective the company has been at reducing costs.

So does this use tube-wall or channel-wall regen nozzle cooling?The pumps, etc, look a lot more elegant and simpler than most first stage engines. An advantage of the expander cycle I guess. I wonder how many restarts this engine can do in theory? Or how deep it can throttle.

Channel wall nozzles have these pipes engraved/printed right into the nozzle wall itself, which is easier to automate and creates a flatter, simpler, and more efficient structure. Virtually all newer regeneratively cooled engines use this method.

So since the outside of the nozzle appears to have a flat surface, the assumption is that it uses channel wall cooling.

I was lazy. Assuming there are no tubes, so it must be channel walled.

Found "Visualization and Optimization of LE-X Engine System Margin", the nozzle extension (or nozzle skirt) is cooled by turbine outlet gas. Seems the gas is just dumped into the nozzle extension. There is no regenerative cooling channel.

Another feature is elongated combustion chamber. For some reason, the combustion chamber is called upper chamber. The nozzle is called lower chamber.

"Aiming at easy-to-use rocket-LE-9 Turbo pump Unit TestJAXA | Aerospace Research and Development OrganizationThe JAXA Tsunoda Space Center has a unit test for the turbo pump used in the LE-9 engine.The turbo pump is an important component of supplying fuel (liquid hydrogen) and oxidizing agent (liquid oxygen) to the engine.In this test, we have confirmed whether the turbo pump was able to demonstrate the function and performance as designed by actually shedding fuel and oxidizing agent.The turbo pump was installed in the LE-9 engine and the engine combustion test was started.

"Next-generation large rocket "H3" new Engine "LE-9" combustion test (actual type # 1-1)JAXA | Aerospace Research and Development OrganizationThe combustion test of the first-stage engine "LE-9" of the next-generation large-scale rocket, "H3", which JAXA develops begins at Tanegashima Space Center. "LE-9" employs an expander bleed cycle that JAXA has been working on for more than ten years. We aim to balance the power and safety exceeding the previous engine.

Rocket Navigator | le-9"

Logged

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1: Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

I don't know if there's anything new here (maybe launch rate?), but this article in the Asian Nikkei Review comments on the H3;

Quote

Mitsubishi Heavy and JAXA aim to launch a prototype of the H3, the H-IIA's successor, in fiscal 2020. The goal is to slash costs to around 5 billion yen ($45.3 million) and the time from order to launch to about one year, using shared parts and components sourced from the private sector. The rocket will also be able to be fitted with different numbers of solid rocket boosters to adjust thrust capacity.

"In both price and reliability, the H3 will put up as good a fight or better" than competitors like SpaceX, said Naohiko Abe, Mitsubishi Heavy's senior vice president in charge of space systems, adding that he hoped to launch two to three satellites per year.

The LE-9 (Lee Nine) engine is a rocket engine that is being newly developed as a main engine of a new rocket "H3 (H3)" scheduled for the launch of the first machine in 2020. As part of this development, burning tests are continuing on April 2017 at the Tanegashima Space Center's combustion test facility. The purpose of this burning test is to obtain various data by repeating the tests with different operating conditions such as thrust and to check whether the function, performance, durability etc are as designed. This burning test is performed for about 240 seconds, using the second experimental engine. We have carried out seven tests so far and accumulated combustion results of about 1,150 seconds. The burning test at this stage is a challenge for each test to be unknown. During combustion, we monitor the operating condition of the engine, and if we get data beyond predicted, we will stop the engine safely. And we use the obtained data in the next exam. The live pattern of the burning test will be live from the Tanegashima Space Center large rocket launch site located about 550 m from the test facility. Please experience the development of the large liquid rocket engine through the image. ● Relay Date Heisei era June 25 (Monday) ● Scheduled air time 15: 45 ~ (planned) ● Please be aware of ※ This distribution will be carried out experimentally with the cooperation of Nikon Corporation is. * Depending on the progress of the examination and weather conditions, the distribution date/delivery time etc. may change or be canceled abruptly. Please note. ※ The burning time is a standard. The burning time may be shortened depending on the acquisition of technical data. ※ This test result will be posted on HP at a later date.

We will deliver the state of the SRB - 3 ground burning test for the H - 3 rocket from the Tanegashima lighthouse by the unmanned fixed point camera. Expected to be tested (DATE): 2018/8/25 11:00 around and around 11:00 + 0900 (JST) ※ Tanegashima The lighthouse is normally restricted from entry. Please do not enter unauthorized entry. ※ For unattended delivery using mobile line, delivery may be canceled without notice.

Solid rocket booster SRB-3 (SR B-3) of a new rocket "H3 (H3)" planned to be launched in FY 2020 for the first test machine. This time live broadcast from the Tanegashima Space Center Takezaki Observatory on site, located about 900 m from the ground burning test site, of the SRB-3 test flame test called "actual machine type motor". Please feel the development scene of the H3 rocket through the image. <Combustion Test Details> SRB-3 for test called "actual machine type motor" was ignited by placing solid fuel in the motor case which is a fuel tank, and it was confirmed whether the characteristics at the time of combustion were as intended I will. The data obtained from this test will be reflected in the design of SRB-3 for flight. The solid rocket booster is responsible for supplementing the thrust immediately after launch, and after burning for about 100 seconds, it finishes its task and is separated from the rocket. In the H3 rocket, you can replace this SRB - 3 with 0, 2, 4, so you can launch artificial satellites of various sizes. Combustion test date and time: August 25, Saturday, August 30, broadcast scheduled time: around 10:50 to 11:0510:50～11:05頃10:50～11:05頃10:50～11:05頃

Report of scrub due to wind direction per NVS chat. Standing by to here if they will switch to the second window of the day at 1300JST. The NVS live stream will run until the camera battery shuts the camera down.

Report of scrub due to wind direction per NVS chat. Standing by to here if they will switch to the second window of the day at 1300JST. The NVS live stream will run until the camera battery shuts the camera down.

Per NVS: Today's test ended in a scrub due to weather (winds and wind direction (for high speed engineering camera recording)). Currently working a NET 24 hour recycle pending favorable weather. The second test window is currently a no go.

JAXA conducted a ground firing test of SRB-3, the Solid Fuel Rocket Booster for the H3 launch vehicle, at the Ground Combustion Test Facilities for Solid Rocket of the Takesaki launch site at the JAXA Tanegashima Space Center, on 26 August 2018, at 07:00 UTC (16:00 local time). According to JAXA, the test lasted 110.1 seconds and was considered successful, with a maximum thrust of 2137 kN. Credit: JAXA